As has been stated on another thread, some of us believe that humans are inherently good, while some feel that if left to our own devices, humans are a 'train wreck' waiting to happen.

If we transfer this question to goverments and governance, how do you feel that the political parties would respond to the question?

I feel like we citizens are not being given enough credit to make the right decisions, and are legislated to the point where the government has a hand in nearly everything we do.

One political group tends to agree with me more than the other party--Libertarians don't count.

Which one does and are they right?

 

I don't see the conservative/liberal debate as a good vs. evil thing. There are some hot button issues where some people will think that the opposing viewpoint is advocating evil, but I think that this is a small percentage of the issues. For example, the current social security debate is driven by competing ideologies about how best to take care of the poor and elderly and how to best manage the resources necessary to provide that care. But I don't think either side of the debate is driven by the idea that man is inherently good or evil.

But on the good vs. evil question, my opinion is that man is evil, while men are good. I think all of our ideas of what is good come from a consensus reached with our fellows. Knowing that others are watching, and that they are expecting us to be good, is what keeps us from descending into evil. I guess I think of society as a support group for recovering "evil addicts". We don't want to go there, but when no one is looking it's easy to backslide.

 

I had faith that you would come to my rescue.
I don't believe that either is the case. "Good and evil" are human constructs that have no relevancy in nature. Humans are born as nearly blank slates and must learn the two.

I think if we polled the politicians we would get the same diversity of opinions as we've seen on this forum, regardless of their political affiliations. I also think that the question of humans being inherently good or evil has less to do with current trends in legislation than the idea that those in power are more knowledgable and better suited to run our lives than we are.
It seems to me that this attitude has been prevalent within the Democratic party, and precisely the reason that I've distrusted it all these years. But I've noticed the very same trend growing like a weed within the Republican camp. Rather than attempt to make a distinction between who is worse, I cast a wide net of suspicion over any and all who would seek public office. Call me paranoid and overly biased, but there is something inherently wrong with anyone who feels compelled to be in charge of others.

 

Difficult question to answer because how do you define good or evil? Once you define it, the definition is biased in your favour....

 

If the checks and balances of civilization fall away, the real, savage nature of humans surfaces. One can see such examples in the real world, e.g. Cultural Revolution in Communist China or mob behaviour during the French Revolution and other revolts. Ie, we attain a "Lord of the Flies" mentality. [chew on this for a while if you will]

 

That doesn't eliminate learned behavior as a causal factor. How did humans survive as a species prior to the relatively recent advent of civilization?
To be born good or evil would require that we also have good and evil genes. I doubt that they exist. I'm over-simplifying the case to the nth degree, but if a behavior isn't genetically programmed, then by process of elimination it has to be a learned response. A few of our genes are probably responsible for hard-wiring some basic instincts into our brains, but it's through our interaction with our environment that we learn how and when we act on them. The fact that I have never known a human infant to commit an act of evil (except for Rosemary's Baby ) suggests to me that this is so.
The debate over nature vs nurture is an old one among scientists, philosophers, and theologians. There's plenty to be said for all sides, and I doubt that a consensus on the issue will ever be reached.
The question of whether good and evil would continue to exist if Earth were to suddenly become devoid of human life I will have to leave to the more spiritually gifted than I to answer.

 

Like I said we have to define good and evil...and I don't think any of us can.

Example

Evil = Murder/Kill another

If no humans are around, animals will kill each other for survival....so are they evil or just doing what they have to do to survive or ensure the most fit survive?

 

I'd rather keep my biologist's hat on so that I can comfortably avoid the whole quagmire of having to define good and evil.
Good and evil are human concepts and values. Nature is blind and unknowing, and cares not a whit about such things. Most animals kill to eat, or to protect themselves, their territory, or their young. They do this for no other reason than to survive. Humans on the other hand have learned to kill for something as transitory and ephemeral as an idea (formulating what constitutes good and evil as an example).
Another great chasm that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is the fact that we aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners. As for overbearing politicians, I have no idea where, or if, they fit into this grand scheme of things.

 

My point is that the government feels that humans are inherently bad, or even a blank slate, they make it their duty/right to control the "masses" through legislation.

People are bad--they need our guidance
People are stupid--we should assist them, and all taxpayers should pitch in
People are hopeless--if left to their own devices, chaos would ensue

Whether inherent or learned, I feel that people are capable of more responsibilty than is afforded us by the government. However, it seems that when personal responsibiity is replaced with a rule or law, some will use that as an excuse to commit bad behaviors.

Doesn't it seem self-perpetuating? Laws don't work, so we make more laws, which don't work...

Who knows--maybe it's the growing population or decreasing amount of space that makes the government think that we need to more laws to control us.

 

I think that's all true, but to be fair I don't think that government alone is entirely responsible for the trend. For whatever their reasons there are a lot of folks who quite simply do not want to have to make decisions or take responsibility for themselves. They would much rather have someone else - the government - deal with those issues. I'm not sure what the reasons are, whether it's because our lives have become much more hectic and complex (all those time and labor saving devices that our technology has given us have certainly paid off, haven't they ), or something entirely different. All I know is that I resent the hell out of the resulting intrusion into my life, and witnessing people being absolved of any personal responsibility for their own stupid/irresponsible behavior because no one was there to hold their hands at the time. I think this country needs a new breed of politicians who are willing to put the brakes on this momentum toward socialism that we seem to be experiencing and get back to basics. And the country itself needs a transfusion of good, old fashioned common sense.
I'll bet you never thought you'd hear me say that did you?